Effects of children's working memory capacity and processing speed on their sentence imitation performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More limited working memory capacity and slower processing for language and cognitive tasks are characteristics of many children with language difficulties. Individual differences in processing speed have not consistently been found to predict language ability or severity of language impairment. There are conflicting views on whether working memory and processing speed are integrated or separable abilities. AIMS: To evaluate four models for the relations of individual differences in children's processing speed and working memory capacity in sentence imitation. The models considered whether working memory and processing speed are integrated or separable, as well as the effect of the number of operations required per sentence. The role of working memory as a mediator of the effect of processing speed on sentence imitation was also evaluated. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Forty-six children with varied language and reading abilities imitated sentences. Working memory was measured with the Competing Language Processing Task (CLPT), and processing speed was measured with a composite of truth-value judgment and rapid automatized naming tasks. Mixed-effects ordinal regression models evaluated the CLPT and processing speed as predictors of sentence imitation item scores. A single mediator model evaluated working memory as a mediator of the effect of processing speed on sentence imitation total scores. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Working memory was a reliable predictor of sentence imitation accuracy, but processing speed predicted sentence imitation only as a component of a processing speed by number of operations interaction. Processing speed predicted working memory capacity, and there was evidence that working memory acted as a mediator of the effect of processing speed on sentence imitation accuracy. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The findings support a refined view of working memory and processing speed as separable factors in children's sentence imitation performance. Processing speed does not independently explain sentence imitation accuracy for all sentence types, but contributes when the task requires more mental operations. Processing speed also has an indirect effect on sentence imitation by contributing to working memory capacity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".